Opinion
CIVIL 5:22-CV-00641 SEC P
02-23-2023
JEREMY X RACHAL #590548, Plaintiff v. TIM HOOPER ET AL, Defendants
ELIZABETH E. FOOTE, JUDGE
MEMORANDUM ORDER
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is a Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 29) and Motion for Relief from Judgement (ECF No. 34) filed by pro se Petitioner Jeremy Rachal (“Rachal”).
In his Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 29), Rachal asks for clarification of an electronic Order (ECF No. 18) granting Rachal's Motion to Expand/Supplement the Record (ECF No. 15). Rachal claims that the Order was “vague and ambiguous and did not specify what this Honorable Court was authorizing to be amended/corrected....” ECF No. 29. Rachal's Motion to Expand/Supplement the Record contained proposed exhibits (ECF No. 15-1) that he sought to add to his Petition. When the Court granted the Motion, the proposed exhibits were made part of the record. ECF No. 20. The Order (ECF No. 18) was not vague or ambiguous and clearly stated that Rachal's Motion was granted.
In his Motion for Relief from Judgment, Rachal asks that his Petition be granted because no answer was filed by Respondent. ECF No. 34. Respondent filed an Answer and Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages the same date as Rachal's Motion. However, even if no response had been filed, Rachal would not be entitled to automatic release. See Wiggins v. Procunier, 735 F.2d 1318, 1321 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing United States ex rel. Mattox v. Scott, 507 F.2d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 1974) (“[A] habeas corpus petitioner [should not be] release[d] in the event of a failure to make a timely return, for the burden of default would then fall upon the community at large.”)); Roberts v. Davis, 3:17-CV-3326, 2019 WL 3208802, at *1 (N.D. Tex. 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3207330 (N.D. Tex. 2019); Beall v. Cockrell, 174 F.Supp.2d 512, 517 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (“Many courts, including the Fifth Circuit, frown on the use of default judgments to grant habeas relief without reaching the merits of the claim.”); Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 1981) (“dilatoriness, standing alone, does not provide a sufficient basis for granting the writ”).
Rachel previously filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 13), which the undersigned denied. ECF No. 17
Because the Court's Order (ECF No. 18) was not ambiguous and Rachal is not entitled to release without a review of the merits of his claims, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 29) and Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 34) are DENIED.